Scholarlink

Background <p>Alveolar bone loss associated with periodontitis and related conditions poses major clinical challenges, underscoring the need for effective regenerative strategies. Dental-derived mesenchymal stem cells (DMSCs), including dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs), periodontal ligament stem cells (PDLSCs), and gingival mesenchymal stem cells (GMSCs), are promising candidates for regenerative applications. However, successful clinical translation requires biomaterial scaffolds that mimic the extracellular matrix (ECM) and support cell processes.</p> Methods <p>Electrospun poly(D, L-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) nanofibrous scaffolds were fabricated using two solvent systems: Scaffold A (DMSO–chloroform) and Scaffold B (chloroform). Scaffold morphology and physicochemical properties were characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), contact angle measurements, Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). DMSC adhesion, viability, and osteogenic differentiation were evaluated using adhesion assays, Alamar Blue, Calcein AM live-cell staining, and analysis of osteogenic markers including alkaline phosphatase (ALP), osteocalcin (OCN), and osteopontin (OPN).</p> Results <p>Scaffold A exhibited uniform, bead-free fibers with higher hydrophobicity, whereas Scaffold B showed bead-like morphology and increased hydrophilicity. Both scaffolds supported DMSC attachment and spreading; however, adhesion of DPSCs and PDLSCs was significantly higher on Scaffold A, while GMSCs showed no scaffold-dependent differences. Viability assays demonstrated overall cytocompatibility, with significantly higher DPSC viability on Scaffold B at 24 and 72&#xa0;h. Osteogenic differentiation was cell–type–dependent: Scaffold A significantly enhanced ALP and OCN production across all DMSCs, whereas Scaffold B increased ALP in DPSCs and PDLSCs but not in GMSCs. FTIR confirmed preservation of PLGA chemical structure, while TGA indicated reduced thermal stability following electrospinning.</p> Conclusion <p>Solvent-driven modulation of PLGA nanofiber morphology and surface wettability enables fine-tuning of scaffold performance, offering a versatile platform for periodontal and craniofacial tissue regeneration.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Solvent-dependent PLGA nanofibers differentially regulate adhesion, viability, and osteogenesis of dental stem cells

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月27日

查看全文
  • Firas Alsoleihat,
  • Marwa Mohammad,
  • Mohammad AbuOun,
  • Muayad Esaifan,
  • Shorouq Alsotari,
  • Duaa Quedan,
  • Bayan Ghanim,
  • Nidal Qinna,
  • Duaa Abuarqoub

摘要

Background

Alveolar bone loss associated with periodontitis and related conditions poses major clinical challenges, underscoring the need for effective regenerative strategies. Dental-derived mesenchymal stem cells (DMSCs), including dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs), periodontal ligament stem cells (PDLSCs), and gingival mesenchymal stem cells (GMSCs), are promising candidates for regenerative applications. However, successful clinical translation requires biomaterial scaffolds that mimic the extracellular matrix (ECM) and support cell processes.

Methods

Electrospun poly(D, L-lactide-co-glycolide) (PLGA) nanofibrous scaffolds were fabricated using two solvent systems: Scaffold A (DMSO–chloroform) and Scaffold B (chloroform). Scaffold morphology and physicochemical properties were characterized by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), contact angle measurements, Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR), and thermogravimetric analysis (TGA). DMSC adhesion, viability, and osteogenic differentiation were evaluated using adhesion assays, Alamar Blue, Calcein AM live-cell staining, and analysis of osteogenic markers including alkaline phosphatase (ALP), osteocalcin (OCN), and osteopontin (OPN).

Results

Scaffold A exhibited uniform, bead-free fibers with higher hydrophobicity, whereas Scaffold B showed bead-like morphology and increased hydrophilicity. Both scaffolds supported DMSC attachment and spreading; however, adhesion of DPSCs and PDLSCs was significantly higher on Scaffold A, while GMSCs showed no scaffold-dependent differences. Viability assays demonstrated overall cytocompatibility, with significantly higher DPSC viability on Scaffold B at 24 and 72 h. Osteogenic differentiation was cell–type–dependent: Scaffold A significantly enhanced ALP and OCN production across all DMSCs, whereas Scaffold B increased ALP in DPSCs and PDLSCs but not in GMSCs. FTIR confirmed preservation of PLGA chemical structure, while TGA indicated reduced thermal stability following electrospinning.

Conclusion

Solvent-driven modulation of PLGA nanofiber morphology and surface wettability enables fine-tuning of scaffold performance, offering a versatile platform for periodontal and craniofacial tissue regeneration.